The ambiguity in the recent Ogre FAQ has stirred up a debate in several threads about the definition of "ranged attacks". The Greedy Fist level stealing ability works on "ranged attacks" according to the new FAQ. However, there seems to be a debate on whether "ranged attacks" includes spells. If it does, then the Lore of Death sniping spells will be devastating when an Ogre Mage with the Greedy Fist casts them.

Can anybody point out anywhere in other FAQs or Armybooks where spells are included in the concept of a "ranged attack"?

I am of the opinion that if they wanted to exclude spells, they would have said that in only works on "shooting attacks" rather than "ranged attacks".

AMWOOD co

17-12-2011, 16:37

Okay, so we're getting into dicey technical vocabulary where it almost certainly doesn't belong.

I can only offer this in the limited time I have: any time that GW wanted something to include magic spells as well as shooting effects, they explicitly state so.

Now, the only case I can think of that parallel's your proposition is the Bane Head. How does the wording compare?

Tzeentch Lover

17-12-2011, 16:44

The closest thing we have to a definition of Ranged Attacks included Magic Missiles:

VC book for the Flag of the Blood Keep.
"Grants the unit a +4 ward save against ranged attacks of any kind(including Warmachines, Templates, Magic Missiles, etc)."

PurpleSun

17-12-2011, 17:25

The closest thing we have to a definition of Ranged Attacks included Magic Missiles:

VC book for the Flag of the Blood Keep.

The description for that Flag of the Blood Keep is very enlightening. Seems conclusive that magic missiles are considered ranged attacks. The next question then is what does "etc" include?

eron12

17-12-2011, 17:28

The description for that Flag of the Blood Keep is very enlightening. Seems conclusive that magic missiles are considered ranged attacks. The next question then is what does "etc" include?

What I found enlightening was that apparently if someone accidentally drops a template on some Bood Knights they get a ward save against the potential damage. :p

PurpleSun

17-12-2011, 17:47

Found this in the Dwarf FAQ regarding the Anvil:

The crew receive a 4+ ward save
against missile fire and ranged magical attacks, and a 6+ ward
save against close combat attacks.

Wonder what counts as a ranged magical attack?

Scalebug

17-12-2011, 18:51

A magic attack, with range (i.e anything not requiring you to be in base contact, even if it could be argued that this is a range of "0")?

Skywave

17-12-2011, 19:02

The "etc." could be for any specific ranged attacks that aren't really classified, like the Banshee/Terrogheist scream, the Tomb Kings Stalker Transmogrifying Gaze (wich is magical), and stuff like that.

Lebowski

17-12-2011, 19:55

ehh. so we are using out of date codexes to supplement/explain a brand new one?

PurpleSun

17-12-2011, 21:31

ehh. so we are using out of date codexes to supplement/explain a brand new one?

Got a better idea?

RealMikeBob

17-12-2011, 21:45

Apply common sense? If you have to measure the range when potentially causing wounds, it's a ranged attack.

TMATK

17-12-2011, 22:09

That does sound like common sense, but I don't know about that sniper spell/greedy fist combo. Seems a bit much. Draining wizard levels by simply casting these spells, without even needing to wound the wizard?

If that's how they want it to work, hopefully they'll FAQ it again so it's clear.

Tuttivillus

17-12-2011, 22:25

all attacks excluding attacks made in combat IMO. Simple as that.

Dirty Mac

17-12-2011, 22:52

ranged attacks, are not spells. ranged attacks would be arty, shooting, Lifetaker, banshee wails, attacks made in the shooting phase. hydras breath attack would be a ranged attack if used outside combat.

Archon Deloth Vyrr

18-12-2011, 00:21

ranged attacks, are not spells. ranged attacks would be arty, shooting, Lifetaker, banshee wails, attacks made in the shooting phase. hydras breath attack would be a ranged attack if used outside combat.

If your going to make an absolute statement like this, you need to provide proof. I eagerly await your page references supporting your interpretation of the rules

PurpleSun

18-12-2011, 01:34

If your going to make an absolute statement like this, you need to provide proof. I eagerly await your page references supporting your interpretation of the rules

I second this. Especially when the Flag of the Blood Keep (which has not been errata-ed in the 8th Ed VC FAQ), specifically says that magic missiles are considered ranged attacks.

Dirty Mac

18-12-2011, 04:11

^there you go all cleared up.

Mr. Shine

18-12-2011, 05:21

I would say that any attack with a range requirement is ranged.

selone

18-12-2011, 07:59

It is alas an easy question to answer, it strikes me that the issue is not what is a ranged attack but is really the deathfist combo that good?

Chaos Undecided

18-12-2011, 08:52

I think its mostly a concern for armies who rely on their caster whether it be undead to function properly or other armies built around pulling off their uber spell as much as possible (gateway,dreaded 13th, dwellers etc) not that I have much sympathy for the latter.

Its a big investment for the Ogre player though first you'll need 2 SM/Butchers and arguably a Beasts Butcher if not a Firebelly would be a better choice for a second caster. Plus you could argue that a successful cast of Caress of Laniph or Fate of Bhjuna may well kill the target anyway.

I can see a quite a few people bringing death butchers as back up to their hellhearts for tournaments for the forseeable future though tbh.

T10

18-12-2011, 09:07

The ambiguity in the recent Ogre FAQ has stirred up a debate in several threads about the definition of "ranged attacks". The Greedy Fist level stealing ability works on "ranged attacks" according to the new FAQ.

Actually, the wizard level stealing effect of the Greedy Fist is triggered by "hits". The FAQ just illustrates that this is not limited to just close combat attacks (this is often assumed). It will apply to impact hits, stomp attacks, shooting attacks and a large number of damage-causing spells as all of these cause "hits".

However, "shooting attacks" and many types of damage-causing spells are indeed worked out at range. Surely these must be considered "ranged attacks".

Moses

18-12-2011, 13:02

It makes sense for it to apply to close combat attacks, you hit them with the Greedy Fist. I was expecting it to be FAQ'd as close combat only (I think it was in the old book, not sure though).

I don't understand why people are willing to accept that an Ogre can have the fist in one hand, a handgun in the other and the fist will trigger, but are arguing that spells cast at range (which I would consider "ranged attacks") wont trigger it. Whilst I can't think of one off the top of my head, would people still be arguing against a spell causing hits against models in base contact?

Also T10, special rules like poison and flaming attacks, of which I assume the Greedy Fist's effect is don't apply to Stomps. I could be wrong including the Greedy Fist effect in with them though.

T10

18-12-2011, 13:22

The Greedy Fist is a magic item of the Talisman category, and not the Weapon category. It is, however, described as a weapon.

I'm thinking that it might be mislabelled and should be a weapon, but GW isn't owning up to any such mistake, at least not yet.

-T10

Scammel

18-12-2011, 14:09

The Greedy Fist has never been a weapon.

Moses

18-12-2011, 14:09

Well it was a Talisman in the previous book, so they've had a while to consider it's category. I don't think they'll change it any time soon.

And whilst it has some magic weaponish effects; permanent +1 strength (unlike stat bonuses from most weapons) and wizard effect, it also grants a ward save and magic weapon destroying capacity. The combination is probably why it's not a weapon.

PurpleSun

18-12-2011, 14:22

It makes sense for it to apply to close combat attacks, you hit them with the Greedy Fist. I was expecting it to be FAQ'd as close combat only (I think it was in the old book, not sure though).

The relevant language in the 7th Ed book read:

"Any Wizard struck by an Ogre with the Greedy Fist loses a Magic level per successful hit."

The relevant language in the 8th Ed book reads:

"In addition, an enemy Wizard loses a Wizard level and a randomly selected spell each time they are hit by an Ogre wearing the Greedy Fist."

It may have seemed like close combat in the old book because it used the word "struck" rather than just "hit".

Mr_Rose

18-12-2011, 17:26

Also, wearing and wielding are not the same; magic weapons generally talk about beng wielded but the greedy fist only has to be worn.

Scammel

18-12-2011, 19:41

it was a Talisman in the previous book

Nope, it was armour, and in some respects was better than its current incarnation.

StefDa

19-12-2011, 01:57

We have to remember that this combo sets the Ogre player quite a lot back points wise and character wise. At least one Butcher has to have the Lore of the Great Maw, so we assume we will have a secondary butcher to fill that role. That's roughly 200 points assuming he's a level 2 Wizard with gear so he's actually useful. Then you need another Butcher, which should be a Slaughtermaster upgraded to lvl 4 in order to have the best possible chance of getting Caress of Laniph/Fate of Bjuna. He will need at the very least the Greedy Fist and likely more gear, resulting in some 350-370 points spent, if my memory serves. That's 550+ pts spent, all for what? To reduce one, MAYBE two of your wizards' magic levels? Sure it can be effective versus a Vampire Counts player, but he'll just throw a unit of Skeletons/Zomvies/Ghouls/Grave Guard in the face of the Death Slaughtermaster's unit (has to be close since the spells have a range of 12" and 24"), preventing it from casting the spells in question on the Vampire which is likely not inside the combat anvil unit.

All of this becomes pointless if the Vampire simply dispels or scrolls the Death spell in the first place.

Yeah, if all of the correct conditions are met and the opposing player strongly relies on that lelev 4 Life/Shadow/Vampire wizard it can be great, but in my opinion not gamebreaking.

skirder

19-12-2011, 20:27

I would put magic missiles and possibly vortexes in the ranged categories, but not direct damage. The reason being that direct damage spells aren't a ranged attack, but a spell with a range that causes damage by being right there. Pit of shades opens a hole, Dwellers involves creatures rising up and striking as if in cc. That being said, the only spells that actually causes hits on a target that can be picked out in the lore of death is the caress of laniph and the fate of bunja. What do the spells do? They MARK an individual to be attacked by a summoned arabyan sorceress/mighty warrior that died forever ago. I don't see how these wounds can be considered a ranged attack with the damage actually being done by the caster, as opposed to fireballs obviously being directly caused by the caster.

Lord Inquisitor

19-12-2011, 21:04

I think a better question is:

Do hits inflicted by a spell count as being inflicted by the character that cast the spell?

Consider a firebelly with the Greedy Fist. He has flame cage and fireball. I think most people would be cool with fireballs being inflicted by the caster but damage inflicted by a unit that tries to move through a flame cage? :eyebrows:

This is a broader question. For example, the Bane Head (I was sure there was a FAQ on this but it doesn't seem to be in the current lizardmen FAQ). Or magic weapons like the Sword of Justice, I've had Empire players claim they can re-roll to wound my unit that moves through the flame cage because it was originally cast by a fire wizard with the sword of justice.

The only thing that I can find to suggest in 8th that damage inflicted by a spell counts as coming from the character is this FAQ from Empire:

From the Empire book:
Hammer of Sigmar: The model can re-roll failed rolls to hit and wound.

Q. If the Hammer of Sigmar prayer is cast upon a Wizard or a
model with a missile weapon, does it allow re-rolls of failed To
Hit/To Wound rolls from spells and/or shooting.(p53)
A. Yes.

Apart from this one example (that I know of), I would have said that spell damage comes from the SPELL and not the caster, so the Greedy Fist, Bane Head and so on wouldn't work for spells, which I think would be by far the best and cleanest resolution. But the hammer of sigmar seems to set a precedent that spell damage comes from the caster.

DaemonReign

19-12-2011, 22:01

Excellent post Lord Inquisitor. I, for one, think you pretty much covered every necessary angle on this one..

PurpleSun

20-12-2011, 15:27

I think a better question is:

Do hits inflicted by a spell count as being inflicted by the character that cast the spell?

Consider a firebelly with the Greedy Fist. He has flame cage and fireball. I think most people would be cool with fireballs being inflicted by the caster but damage inflicted by a unit that tries to move through a flame cage? :eyebrows:

This is a broader question. For example, the Bane Head (I was sure there was a FAQ on this but it doesn't seem to be in the current lizardmen FAQ). Or magic weapons like the Sword of Justice, I've had Empire players claim they can re-roll to wound my unit that moves through the flame cage because it was originally cast by a fire wizard with the sword of justice.

The only thing that I can find to suggest in 8th that damage inflicted by a spell counts as coming from the character is this FAQ from Empire:

From the Empire book:
Hammer of Sigmar: The model can re-roll failed rolls to hit and wound.

Q. If the Hammer of Sigmar prayer is cast upon a Wizard or a
model with a missile weapon, does it allow re-rolls of failed To
Hit/To Wound rolls from spells and/or shooting.(p53)
A. Yes.

Apart from this one example (that I know of), I would have said that spell damage comes from the SPELL and not the caster, so the Greedy Fist, Bane Head and so on wouldn't work for spells, which I think would be by far the best and cleanest resolution. But the hammer of sigmar seems to set a precedent that spell damage comes from the caster.

Excellent analysis. But now I find myself confused on other fronts. Does this mean that a Wizard in a unit with the Banner of Eternal Flames has flaming spell attacks? Since it seems that a spell is an attack coming from the Wizard, then should not all his spell attacks be flaming with that banner?

skirder

20-12-2011, 15:56

Excellent analysis. But now I find myself confused on other fronts. Does this mean that a Wizard in a unit with the Banner of Eternal Flames has flaming spell attacks? Since it seems that a spell is an attack coming from the Wizard, then should not all his spell attacks be flaming with that banner?

Flaming attacks don't work with spells as noted BUT if you had a wizard in a unit with the Razor Standard I can't see anything saying that armour piercing doesn't stack with magic weapons or spells.

skirder

20-12-2011, 17:16

Flaming attacks don't work with spells as noted BUT if you had a wizard in a unit with the Razor Standard I can't see anything saying that armour piercing doesn't stack with magic weapons or spells.

pg 67
wounds in close combat are affected unless they are specifically for a weapon, then they only affect that weapons attacks.

Lord Inquisitor

20-12-2011, 17:25

pg 67
wounds in close combat are affected unless they are specifically for a weapon, then they only affect that weapons attacks.

Indeed. However, the Razor Standard gives all models in the unit the rule rather than their weapons.

skirder

20-12-2011, 17:47

Indeed. However, the Razor Standard gives all models in the unit the rule rather than their weapons.

"Wounds caused IN CLOSE COMBAT by a model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule)..."

Razor doesn't work on spells, or even on bows

Lord Inquisitor

20-12-2011, 17:52

Huh, never noticed that and I read through it twice. :o Good point. So it'd apply to magical close combat weapons but not to ranged attacks or spells.

Wow it really shows there needed to be some kind of general rule how special rules apply.

skirder

20-12-2011, 17:57

lol... ikr? i was using it on glade guard for a while... it was kinda epic... from 20" i could move forward, hit on threes, have s4 ap. squad of 30 would be 25 shots 16.66666.... hits, wounding on a 3+ or a 4+... at -2 as... yeah... back to OT

The way people use the bane head seems to suggest that it would allow them to do it with magic, but I think that the Bane Head is used incorrectly (and I play lizards, just saying). They even use it in conjunction with the freaking cupped balls to double the miscast wounds (as if that item wasn't already cheese)

that being said, the bane head is a curse and has to do with wounds caused. not a glove that has to do with hits. bane head arguably deals with their life force while the glove deals with you hitting them.

Lord Inquisitor

20-12-2011, 17:59

The way people use the bane head seems to suggest that it would allow them to do it with magic, but I think that the Bane Head is used incorrectly (and I play lizards, just saying). They even use it in conjunction with the freaking cupped balls to double the miscast wounds (as if that item wasn't already cheese)

that being said, the bane head is a curse and has to do with wounds caused. not a glove that has to do with hits. bane head arguably deals with their life force while the glove deals with you hitting them.
Yeah thing with Bane Head is that I believe there was an old FAQ that said that the wounds do double when inflicted by spells so Lizard players have cheerfully been playing it that way ever since.

The bane head might be a curse but the wording is pretty similar, it has to the be the bearer of the head. The Greedy Fist used to be armour but it's a talisman now. Not exactly sure how the Fist is meant to work, it's never been an actual weapon.

skirder

20-12-2011, 18:19

i think the big difference is that one is based on wounds, the other is based on hits.
it's a lot easier to hit someone than it is to wound them... just sayin. I think both items need a new FAQ

Lord Inquisitor

20-12-2011, 18:20

it's a lot easier to hit someone than it is to hit them... just sayin.

:eyebrows::confused:;):p:D

PurpleSun

20-12-2011, 18:51

Wow it really shows there needed to be some kind of general rule how special rules apply.

Amen, brother.

I still cannot get over the fact that my Treeman has magical attacks when he hits you with his upper branches, but when he stomps you with his lower branches, they are not magical.

Also, my Maneaters with the flaming banner get flaming impact hits with their gut plates, but when they squish you with there metal pointy elf boots, they are not flaming.

[Ironically enough, one time when my Bruiser with flaming attacks was in a challenge with a Tomb Prince who had a 2+ ward vs. flaming attacks, my Bruiser's stomp actually end up killing the Tomb Prince over a couple turns. Hilarious!]

skirder

20-12-2011, 19:22

just because of the 2++ vs fire stuff, i'm glad that flaming doesn't transfer to magical weapons and stomps

Lebowski

20-12-2011, 21:54

just because of the 2++ vs fire stuff, i'm glad that flaming doesn't transfer to magical weapons and stomps

... kinda wish it did :evilgrin:

skirder

21-12-2011, 08:57

lol, you would, mr. flaming white king front rank

CmdrLaw

21-12-2011, 13:56

Did anyone see the small box on page 41 which refers to "Usual ranged attacks"

And talks about Magic missiles not needing to roll to hit, but still in the context of being ranged attacks, it's even in the shooting section.

Moses

21-12-2011, 14:52

that being said, the bane head is a curse and has to do with wounds caused. not a glove that has to do with hits. bane head arguably deals with their life force while the glove deals with you hitting them.

I would also assume it also deals with hitting people, but since it also effects ranged weapons, you can assume that it doesn't just affect punches being thrown, it's effects are imbued into everything the model does, like shooting the handgun or casting spells.

skirder

21-12-2011, 18:11

Did anyone see the small box on page 41 which refers to "Usual ranged attacks"

And talks about Magic missiles not needing to roll to hit, but still in the context of being ranged attacks, it's even in the shooting section.

so this looks like direct damage is out but magic missiles are in, right?

Tuttivillus

21-12-2011, 21:23

Did anyone see the small box on page 41 which refers to "Usual ranged attacks"

And talks about Magic missiles not needing to roll to hit, but still in the context of being ranged attacks, it's even in the shooting section.

What about un-usual ranged attacks? :angel:

Spiney Norman

21-12-2011, 22:48

I think a better question is:

Do hits inflicted by a spell count as being inflicted by the character that cast the spell?

Consider a firebelly with the Greedy Fist. He has flame cage and fireball. I think most people would be cool with fireballs being inflicted by the caster but damage inflicted by a unit that tries to move through a flame cage? :eyebrows:

This is a broader question. For example, the Bane Head (I was sure there was a FAQ on this but it doesn't seem to be in the current lizardmen FAQ). Or magic weapons like the Sword of Justice, I've had Empire players claim they can re-roll to wound my unit that moves through the flame cage because it was originally cast by a fire wizard with the sword of justice.

The only thing that I can find to suggest in 8th that damage inflicted by a spell counts as coming from the character is this FAQ from Empire:

From the Empire book:
Hammer of Sigmar: The model can re-roll failed rolls to hit and wound.

Q. If the Hammer of Sigmar prayer is cast upon a Wizard or a
model with a missile weapon, does it allow re-rolls of failed To
Hit/To Wound rolls from spells and/or shooting.(p53)
A. Yes.

Apart from this one example (that I know of), I would have said that spell damage comes from the SPELL and not the caster, so the Greedy Fist, Bane Head and so on wouldn't work for spells, which I think would be by far the best and cleanest resolution. But the hammer of sigmar seems to set a precedent that spell damage comes from the caster.

The problem with your Lore of Fire example is that the hits effect the target unit, not any given character within it, and based on the current allocation of hits the only way you could make that work would be if the target wizard was not inside a unit when the spell was cast, which is somewhat unlikely.

The only spells the greedy fist can work with are sniper spells (like Caress of Laniph) or shooting attacks with the sniper rule that can specifically target characters in units.

IMHO there are very few wizards that would survive a successful casting of either of the two assassination spells in the lore of death, and you'd be lucky to get both of them unless you committed a slaughtermaster to the cause in which case you are already paying premium points for your combo.

IMHO this combo is something of a red-herring.

PurpleSun

21-12-2011, 23:00

IMHO there are very few wizards that would survive a successful casting of either of the two assassination spells in the lore of death, and you'd be lucky to get both of them unless you committed a slaughtermaster to the cause in which case you are already paying premium points for your combo.

I disagree. If you successfully cast Caress against a Lord caster, you are going to average 7 hits minus their strength which equals 4 hits. They wound on a 4+ so that would be 2 wounds. If you Lord has a 4++ save, he will only take 1 wound out of 3 wounds per casting of the spell. So in theory, you would have to hit him with Caress 3 times to kill him. And if he was using Lore of Life, forget about it.

In the alternative, the first successful casting with 4 hits would completely neuter the wizard, letting you spend the rest of the turns focusing on other targets.

CmdrLaw

22-12-2011, 08:38

so this looks like direct damage is out but magic missiles are in, right?

I would say they are both fine, as it just uses magic missiles as an example.

It follows that Direct damage spells follows the same formula as Magic missiles, you pick a target and don't need to roll to hit.

The box states these while being unusual attacks (ie not standard shooting) are still attacks.

It is in an odd place and could be clearer (as usual) but intention is pretty clear.

Dreadlordpaul

22-12-2011, 09:01

I would say yes it does include magic spells because they aint classed as close combat attacks unless they state so they are ranged attacks for all intents and purposes

Drakemaster

22-12-2011, 12:31

Another similar issue I've come across is spells like Shield of Thorns and Cascading Fire Cloak. The hits are inflicted at the end of the magic phase, and affect models in base contact. So do they count as ranged attacks? They certainly don't seem to be close combat hits, seeing as they don't occur in the close combat phase. So does (for example) the Flag of Blood Keep offer a saving throw against them? Would war machines take the hits against the toughness of the machine (used for 'ranged attacks') or the toughness of the crew (used for 'close combat attacks')?

CmdrLaw

22-12-2011, 15:22

Another similar issue I've come across is spells like Shield of Thorns and Cascading Fire Cloak. The hits are inflicted at the end of the magic phase, and affect models in base contact. So do they count as ranged attacks? They certainly don't seem to be close combat hits, seeing as they don't occur in the close combat phase. So does (for example) the Flag of Blood Keep offer a saving throw against them? Would war machines take the hits against the toughness of the machine (used for 'ranged attacks') or the toughness of the crew (used for 'close combat attacks')?

I would go using this errata.

Q: Do special rules that can inflict hits in close combat, such as
Stomp and Breath Weapons, count as close combat attacks? (p42)
A: No they count as an unusual attack and will be distributed
as a shooting attack.

So yes they are attacks, but are not CC or ranged but unusual.

Although this mostly covers the things that DO happen in the CC phase so still a bit ambiguous.

Lord Inquisitor

23-12-2011, 15:23

The problem with your Lore of Fire example is that the hits effect the target unit, not any given character within it, and based on the current allocation of hits the only way you could make that work would be if the target wizard was not inside a unit when the spell was cast, which is somewhat unlikely.
Firstly, there are plenty of wizards that hang around outside units. A fireball can hit a Greater Daemon, Grey Seer on bell, Tzeentch disc-riders, etc. Secondly, actually the Flame Cage example was chosen because if you move through the Cage, every model in the unit does take a hit, which would indeed hit every wizard in the unit.

IMHO there are very few wizards that would survive a successful casting of either of the two assassination spells in the lore of death, and you'd be lucky to get both of them unless you committed a slaughtermaster to the cause in which case you are already paying premium points for your combo.
Caress is unlikely to kill even an unprotected wizard. Fate is a lot nastier but much harder to cast with shorter range, etc.

Rhellion

10-01-2012, 12:55

so this looks like direct damage is out but magic missiles are in, right?

I suggest you look at pg 31 BRB - "Direct Damage spells are deadly attacks....", and since they have a range, by extension and commonly accepted English usage they are 'ranged attacks'.

Arijharn

11-01-2012, 08:58

Apply common sense? If you have to measure the range when potentially causing wounds, it's a ranged attack.
I agree with that, I'd like to expound with a sort of pseudo-code example:

If in base contact then
not ranged attack
if not in base contact but within range then
ranged attack

I think it's pretty simple imo. The only exception to this would be if GW made an Errata somewhere that needs to spell out rules that run contrary to the 'general' rules, for example, providing that the Flag of Blood Keep in the upcoming VC army book behaves like it used too, does the 4+ ward vs ranged attacks somehow overwrites the general spell rule of 'ignores saves of any kind' (i.e., stat tests or die) in certain spells, and if it does so then it must be explicit.

Lord Inquisitor

11-01-2012, 16:18

I suggest you look at pg 31 BRB - "Direct Damage spells are deadly attacks....", and since they have a range, by extension and commonly accepted English usage they are 'ranged attacks'.
Yes. However, that's really not the question. The question is, does damage caused by spells count as being caused by the caster, not the spell? By and large "caused by the spell" seems to make the most sense but the only precedent seems to be "caused by the caster".